Qualitative methods

Whilst the quantitative methods involved the analysis of numerical data, this section will explore the range of qualitative methods that were used throughout the portfolio, including case studies, interviews, focus groups and surveys. Hitchcock and Hughes suggest that qualitative methodologies are more appropriate for educational research, as they lead to a greater understanding of the situation:

‘Research does not take place in a vacuum, it always has a context. Social and educational research is conducted by thinking, feeling human beings and in qualitative approaches, the researcher takes on a highly interactive profile.’

(Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995, p.39)

The qualitative methods were used as means of finding out the reasons that supported and underpinned the quantitative data. Within Section 1 of the portfolio, after evaluating the numbers of young people who study physics at GCSE and A level, I wanted to determine the reasons why students chose not to study physics at A level, so I contacted some of the Heads of Science from our partner schools. They provided first hand information upon their perception of the problem, specifically the shortage of specialist physics teachers and a surplus of biology teachers, who were often coerced into teaching physics within our partner schools.

Within this section, I held a focus group with a small number of A level students who had chosen to study science A levels at the college, but not chosen to study A level physics. In Research and the Teacher, it is emphasised that for group interviews, small groupings of six students would

116

be the most productive (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995, p.161). Focus groups are a particular type of group interview where the participants are selected to discuss a particular topic or theme. According to Cohen: ‘Their contrived nature is both their strength and their weakness’ (Cohen, 2007, P.376).

There were several options that I considered before holding this focus group, however I decided to focus upon the reasons why young people were not choosing to study physics A level. I invited the students who were studying biology and chemistry A level but not physics, and all five students agreed to participate in the focus group.

Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) outline the advantages of recording interviews by tape or video. The students in the focus group were not keen on either, so I made notes during the group interview. During the interview, there were various questions to obtain factual information, such as current A level subjects, choice of degree course and factors relating to previous schooling. There were more open-ended questions about the factors that influenced their decisions. The students raised issues such as course content, the teachers and relevance for a future career.

Cohen (2007) and Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) discuss potential problems with this type of study in that the investigator may need to prevent some of the participants from dominating the conversation, avoid situations were some of the participants feel exposed or uncomfortable in front of peers, and ensure that the participants do not become distracted or veer from the topic. Due to the composition of this group, none of these factors were a problem.

117

Individual interviews may have produced more formal responses, but the focus group presented the opportunity of observing how this small group of students interact with each other and how they discussed and agreed on common themes which were important to them. The answers that these five students provided are therefore not representative of the whole cohort of students within the college, but provide a valuable insight into why students were not choosing to study physics A level (when they had strong GCSE results and could have progressed to study this subject).

Within Section 2 of the portfolio, I took the opportunity of contacting the four geographically nearest universities to ask about physics degree courses. I received a very detailed reply (by email) from the one university that offers physics degrees in the region, explaining that the success of their department was partially due to the international research, and therefore the funding, that the department received. The other three universities in the area do not offer physics degrees, but a representative from each of these universities replied to my questions.

Within Section 3 of the portfolio, I conducted a survey of my students, which was based upon recommendations suggested by the Institute of Physics report ‘Girls in the Physics Classroom: a Teacher’s Guide for Action’ (Hollins, 2006). The report provides practical advice for physics teachers, irrespective of gender, and encourages the use of surveys as a means of promoting dialogue between teachers and students on issues relating to teaching and learning.

The survey that I conducted was a paper-based questionnaire that I gave to 30 AS and 10 A2 students during 2009. Due to the relatively small

118

number of students, I could then use this as a framework for subsequent discussion and small individual interviews. When conducting surveys, one of the considerations is the nature of the group itself and the limitations presented by the students who are participating in the survey. As all of the students in this survey studied A level physics, whether first or second years, they were a self-selecting group who all brought different experiences to the classroom but were all bound by their own choice to study A level physics.

I explained to my students that finding out about how they learn was not with the intention of adapting teaching methods to suit the students preferred learning styles, as the educational journey could not be achieved without developing skills that were outside of students’ preferred ‘comfort zones’. Whilst I avoided too much educational pedagogy when discussing this with students, I found that I needed to explain the difference between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ very carefully. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (2.4), Brookfield found that students could often confuse their needs with their personal preferences, and that students were not always in the best position to decide what was in their best interests (Brookfield, 1995, p.20).

Cohen discusses the importance of vocabulary in surveys and how words have different shades of meaning for each of us (Cohen, 2007, p.322). Therefore, I assigned words that were generally used by students, rather than words outside of their everyday vocabulary. Although this survey was part of a qualitative investigation, it employed a small-scale quantitative analysis of the responses. In order to convert the responses to more quantitative data, I assigned a rating scale for each response, then calculated the average point scores for each activity and ranked them in

119

order. According to Cohen, rating scales are widely used in research as they present an opportunity to ‘fuse measurement with opinion, quantity and quality’ (Cohen, 2007, p.327).

Cohen outlines some of the advantages of rank ordering, but suggests that there should be a maximum of five choices so that the task for the respondent is not too over-whelming. Some ‘cautionary factors’ are pointed out, such as the fact that there is no way of knowing if the respondent is telling the truth. Some respondents deliberately avoid the extreme ends of the scales and opt for midpoints. (Cohen, 2007, p.325)

Section 7 of the portfolio includes a study into home background as an important influence upon the learning process and future decisions made by young people. The findings from a survey conducted with my second year A level students were presented. For this survey, care needed to be taken as it involved some questions that involved the students’ families. All students were informed before the survey (and all interviews) that they must not respond to any question that they do not feel comfortable with.

Due to the small group, with only two girls in that particular A level physics class, the responses cannot be generalised to represent all of girls who study physics A level. This was simply a ‘snapshot’ picture of the students in my A level physics class. If the same survey was conducted in a later academic year, the responses may have been different. It did, however, illuminate some of the issues which are relevant to this study.

Within Section 9 of the portfolio, I explored the range of scientific careers within this area. I began this study by contacting the Head of the local Connexions Service, who recommended one of his senior advisers to

120

act as a point of contact with whom I could discuss issues relating to science careers within this area. Working with this Adviser, I learned more about the function of the Connexions Service and how they catered for the needs of learners up to the age of nineteen. I was very surprised to learn that each university operates its own specific Careers Service, which operate completely independently, and are not connected to either other universities or the Connexion Service. In order to pursue this line of research, I made personal contact with two local university career teams.

Within Section 10 of the portfolio, I have presented a case study of one of our former students from the FEC who progressed to study astrophysics at university. Hitchcock and Hughes discuss the purpose of case studies as: ‘an in depth study of a single event’ where the researcher investigates social behaviour in a particular setting and the factors influencing the situation (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995, p.317). They explain that case studies focus on people, so it is their perception of the situation which is of importance.

Yin (2012) suggests that the advantages of case study research is that it reveals how case study participants ‘construct reality and think about situations, not just to provide answers to a researcher’s specific questions’ (Yin, 2012, p.12). He also outlines some of the problems when conducting case studies, for example, a lack of rigour, little basis for generalisation and the fact that they can take too long to complete. Yin further explains that case studies can form an important part of a mixed-method study.

Yin defines the ‘unit of analysis’ within a case study as the case itself. Applied to Section 10 of the portfolio, the initial case was the female student

121

from the FEC who had pursued astrophysics at university. This was originally intended to be a single-case study, however, after developing links with Durham University, there was an opportunity to discuss the same questions with three female physics research students, making this section into a multiple case study.

Yin classifies case studies into three categories: Exploratory (initial pilot studies which generate further research), Descriptive (which provide a narrative account) and Explanatory (which generate new theory or test existing ones). If using this classification, then the case studies in this study would be descriptive. The objective of these case studies was to explore the reasons why some women are attracted towards physics, which is a sub-unit of the whole study of physics in post-compulsory education. Therefore they are embedded rather than holistic case studies (Yin, 2009, p.53).

In preparation for a case study, it was necessary to gain consent from the participants, as well as assuring them of privacy and confidentiality. Yin states that when case studies take the form of interviews, the interviewees’ responses are subject to bias, poor recall and poor or inaccurate articulation (Yin, 2009, p.109), therefore I took care to make sure that each person could give due consideration and reflection to their responses.

For the first study, I interviewed the young woman then refined this by writing out some specific questions and she produced written responses for me to use in the study. This ensured that she was comfortable with the information, although this was primarily a concern on my part rather than that of the interviewee. Similarly, with the three women who were currently conducting PhD level research in astrophysics, I used the method of

122

interviewing first in person, then clarifying particular responses with written questions and answers.

Within Case Study Theory, there are a range of methods that can be applied towards analysing data and as Yin states: ‘there is no automated algorithm when analysing narrative data’ (Yin, 2012, p.15). As the purpose of these studies was to gain an insight into what attracted them towards the study of astrophysics, pattern matching was the most appropriate method for evaluating the responses. It was clear that the wonder of space held fascination for all four women, each of whom held a genuine passion for the subject (interest). Each of the women articulated that they found the subject difficult at times, but believed that it was worth pursuing to achieve a sound understanding (they enjoyed the subject because it was difficult). The third point that I found most interesting was that each of the four women came from middle-class well-educated backgrounds where university education was expected of them.

The most surprising feature of the case studies with the three research students was that each of them separately expressed concern about their future employment, believing that it would be difficult to forge a career in astrophysics.

Yin (2009) provides advice on presenting case study reports according to target audience. The case study of the former student from the FEC was written up in one particular manner which was appropriate for current students at the FEC and uploaded onto the physics VLE site. I made another abridged version with a photograph of this young woman to be pinned onto the careers section of the laboratory. Then the overall findings

123

from the four separate case studies were presented in Section 10 of the portfolio.

As mentioned, Yin outlines that one of the main problems with case studies is the difficulty in making generalisations. As there were only four women who participated in this aspect of the study, then it must be stressed that any findings do not represent the views of all women who pursue careers in physics. The views expressed within the case studies simply illuminate the situation and produced some interesting themes.

Flyvbjerg (2006) discusses some of the problems with case studies in his paper ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research’ and refutes the criticism of the difficulties in generalising from specific case studies. He argues that generalisations are ‘over-rated’ and that the ‘force of example’ from a single case is underestimated (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.228). He claims that case studies may not always be easy to summarise or present according to neat formulae, as ‘good narratives typically approach the complexities and contradictions of real life’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.237).

Within Section 11 of the portfolio, I have included feedback from former physics students from the FEC. It must be stressed that this is not a random selection, as they are from students who have remained in contact with me and keep me informed of their progress. A more random selection of former students may reveal quite different comments, however, these students clearly had a positive experience of A level physics and appreciated my support during their time at the college and wanted to be involved in my journey towards a professional doctorate.

124